Pfhorrest
1.5k
Knowledge is a kind of belief. — Pfhorrest

No it isn't.

A guess is also a kind of belief. — Phorrest

This may seem a diversion from the thread topic, but it is NOT.

If that is so, why do you suppose people who are making a guess...A PURELY BLIND GUESS...about whether or not any gods exist...

...almost NEVER use "guess" rather than "believe/belief?"

When is the last time you heard someone say, "I guess (in) God."

Or, "I guess there are no gods."

Or, "I guess it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

When is the last time you heard anyone say, "I VERY FIRMLY guess there are no gods?...or, "I VERY FIRMLY guess...in anything?"

Can you not see that most people think there is a substantial difference between "guess" and "believe/belief" in that area...and that it is reconcilable? Can you not see that most will never acknowledge the difference...nor will they acknowledge the subterfuge involved in using "believe/belief" rather than "guess?"

Do you not see that it is philosophically significant?

Pfhorrest
1.5k
Thinking or believing is broader than speculating/supposing/guessing. You are trying to pigeonhole every opinion into a blind guess. They aren't, and it isn't necessary for them to be to define the relevant categories. — Pfhorrest

Nah...opinions are opinions. If you express an opinion as "I 'believe' such and such"...you are disguising the fact that it is an opinion. Much better to say, "My opinion is that...such and such."

I know, I know...the old "one trick pony!"

But this is incredibly important in almost every discussion of this sort...and you guys are just not getting it.

Really give it some thought.

And stay safe.

Seems to me it would make sense to state what is being stated without characterizing it as "I belief" or "I think"...and just stating what is attempting to be communicated.

If you are speculating or supposing or guessing something...say , "I speculate/suppose/guess that..."

Wouldn't that clear things up?

Saying "I think such and such" is as much a disguise for "I suppose/speculate/guess such and such" as is "I 'believe' such and such."

Easy to understand why someone would suppose the two to be the same.

Seems to me that you have two choices here:

Quote a passage...and give a citation.

Or acknowledge that you cannot.

So you don´t. I call BS on that, unless you can provide a reference.

Can you try to stick to things you know instead of spouting conspiracy theories? — Nobeernolife

Allow me to take this opportunity to agree with you on this.

Nobeernolife
414
NoberernoLife will NEVER acknowledge that Allah cannot hate the followers of the god of Abraham...because Allah IS the god of Abraham.
— Frank Apisa

Ah, but Nobeernolife is pointing out that Allah DOES hate the followers of the god of Abraham. Because he says so. In the Koran.

Yeah, reading comprehension is a bitch, isn´t it. — Nobeernolife

One: You ought never to refer to yourself in the third person. It is the boorish form of egoism.

Two: Quote the Koran passage where Allah says "I hate the followers of the god of Abraham." Give a citation.

Athena
578
I did not say that "w other ideas of the God of Abraham are better". I explained (how many times now?) that seeing how Allah hates the followers of the God of Abraham, it would have to be schizophrenic god of you claim it is the same god. That is simple logic.

Is that really so hard to wrap your mind around?
— Nobeernolife

You obviously have different information than I do, and I don't believe as you do. Is that so hard for you to get your head around? Here is what I believe is true.

People of the Book
Muslims believe that God had previously revealed Himself to the earlier prophets of the Jews and Christians, such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Muslims therefore accept the teachings of both the Jewish Torah and the Christian Gospels. They believe that Islam is the perfection of the religion revealed first to Abraham (who is considered the first Muslim) and later to other prophets. Muslims believe that Jews and Christians have strayed from God's true faith but hold them in higher esteem than pagans and unbelievers. They call Jews and Christians the "People of the Book" and allow them to practice their own religions. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the "seal of the prophecy," by which they mean that he is the last in the series of prophets God sent to mankind. Muslims abhor the followers of later prophets. This attitude serves to explain the extreme Muslim animosity toward Bahais, followers of a nineteenth-century prophet, who in the Muslim mind is false. — Athena

NoberernoLife will NEVER acknowledge that Allah cannot hate the followers of the god of Abraham...because Allah IS the god of Abraham.

Nobeer is not interested in a discussion of what is true...he is interested in venting his hatred toward Muslims. Okay...for some people that is a good thing, perhaps an important thing, to do.

I think the position you should take on this now is informed by something any sailor might tell you: Don't piss into the wind.

↪Frank Apisa Basta! Go troll somewhere else ...

You've offered nothing of any substance or, for that matter, philosophical interest for some time now. Stop embarrassing yourself, Frank. I've no interest in humoring you any longer. Thanks for all the fodder you've left for me to use as examples of how NOT to argue (or philosophize). Buonanotte signore ... — 180 Proof

I have offered more of substance than you are able to digest.

Insofar as "god" is undefined, the statement "god is false" says nothing but "@^%*# is false" (i.e. nonsense). Otherwise, if 'theism is false' is true, then every theistic-type of g/G is fictional - that's my position. — 180 Proof

Horse shit.

If the definition of "god" is such a problem...why not change the question to what is actually being asked...because the question, "Are there any gods or are there no gods?"...is merely a way of asking, "Do YOU know EVERYTHING that exists in the REALITY of existence?"

So do you?

DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...which by extension mean "know what does not exist?"

DO YOU?

HINT: No you do not.

180 Proof
843
There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.
— Frank Apisa
Wrong again, Frankie! :sweat: — 180 Proof

I repeat: "There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods."

Cite one example of 'divine' intervention in the world (i.e. miracle) ascribed uniquely (i.e. which cannot also be ascribed to natural forces or agents) to any g/G in any religious or philosophical tradition for which there is any corroborable evidence. Insofar as you can't - that there isn't any - THAT is "unambiguous evidence against the existence of gods" BECAUSE such evidence is entailed by 'divine predicates' attributed to it.

To wit (as per tim wood's "magic hippopotami"): Absence of any evidence entailed by a g/G predicates is evidence of the absence of a g/G so predicated.
— 180 Proof
In others words, predicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).

E.g. (A) Elephant sitting on your lap ... (B) YHWH created the world in six days ... (C) In 2020 George Bush lives in the White House ... (D) UFOs take-off & land at JFK Airport ... etc

So: absence of evidence entailed by (A/B/C/D) is evidence - entails - absence of (A/B/C/D): search (A) your lap, (B) the geophysics of the earth, (C) who is currently POTUS, and (D) control tower logs, arrival / departure gates & runways at JFK Airport ... :yawn:

NB: Proof of 'proving a negative'.

Also the main body or your argument is fallacious. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
— SonOfAGun
Strawman. :clap:

My actual "argument", as sketched above, I've applied as a principle - criterion - for evaluating  any theistic conception of divinity and thereby I'm committed to anti-theism (which, therefore, excludes 'agnosticism' with respect to theism's truth-value (of its e.g. ontological claims)).
— 180

Like I said...there is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.

I have to infer that you agree with me on that...or you would have provided at least one piece of unambiguous evidence that no gods exist...which you didn't.

I actually don't see it that way. They may be technically following the guidelines, but they are breaking the spirit of the intent. In other words, this is a non-essential business that can work remotely. Also, this is pertaining to ethics. Is it ethical to enable people to work in close quarters (or closer quarters than they would) when almost all medical and government advice to the public is to work remotely if you can? — schopenhauer1

I'm not nuts about the parameters you set up for this...they seem contrived. But I see "the spirit" of what you are after...and I agree. The ethical thing for every employer to do...is to follow the spirit of any laws enacted...rather than be rigid.

That said...a couple of personal things.

My wife simply went in and asked her boss what the "contingency plans" were for the shop...and after he beat around the bush for a while...she went for the jugular. "I'm a few months away from 65," she said.

The boss damn near jumped out of his chair. (Nancy looks about 30!)...and immediately called in the IT tech and ordered him to work out a way for her to work from home. She now gets up each morning and heads down to her office (the ping pong table in our basement) and puts in a full day of work. Travel to and from work is a hell of a lot easier walking the stairs...than traveling the busy highway she was using.

Two...I work a few days a week as a starter at a golf course. Golf courses are hardly essential...but much better they stay open. Old people need exercise...and golf often is the only exercise some get. I have to move golf carts in and out...and the steering wheels are a problem...but with gloves and sanitizer spray, it should work out okay. We are opening late (not until early April) so the may be consiidering a full closure. It is a county course...and almost the entire non-essential country operation is totally down.

Three...I've got a GREAT picture of our three cats doing social distancing but I just do not know how to post a picture from my computer. I have the picture at Flickr, but it is too goddam small.

god must be atheist
2k
↪SonOfAGun ↪Pfhorrest ↪Vinicius ↪Pinprick

The above comment was addressed to you people.
— Frank Apisa

I am glad you left me out of the list. — god must be atheist

Actually, I left you off by mistake.

It would have been a direct insult to my intelligence to be instructed to read the same stuff you have written ten thousand times** already. — god must be atheist

I have to repeat it...the people who don't get it need lots of schooling.

And I have told you a million times, "Knock off the hyperbole."

Then you are surprised why we call you a one-topic poster. — god must be atheist

Oh, you think I am surprised? By someone attempting an insult in an Internet forum?

Okay...you must be new!

** Disclaimer: Not an exact count. — god must be atheist

No one is expecting you to be able to count.

The above comment was addressed to you people.

I think (suspect) by now that it is obvious to most people actually following the conversations here...that there are some people who use the descriptor "atheist" who want VERY MUCH to insist that they are not doing any "believing"...meaning "not doing any ACCEPTING AS TRUE without sufficient basis."

But equally obviously...THEY ARE.

I have never met or known of a person who designates him/herself an "atheist" who does not "believe" either that "no gods exist" or that "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does."

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with "believing" either of those things. Every person who wants to be known as an "atheist" should simply embrace the notion that they do "believe" one (or both) of those things.

They do not want to do so.

Thought should be given to the contortions to logic that must be done to in order to maintain this pretense. Thought should be given to the notion that in order to maintain this pretense, atheists must insist that babies, infants, toddlers are atheists...and that even agnostics who insist they are not...must accept that they are atheists also.

I have my ideas about why all this bizarre contortions have to happen...which I have shared.

Antidote
137
Hi Frank, still at it I see. I found this in the bible this morning and thought it might be helpful...

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." — Antidote

I have no problem with the concept of sin, Antidote...providing "sin" is thought of as "doing something someone considers wrong, unnecessarily harmful, or evil." If it is simply defined as "doing something that offends (a god)"...then all bets are off. If a particular god demands that everyone kiss its ass as often as possible...and deems not doing so to be "sin"...we have parted company. Big time!

SonOfAGun
106
— SonOfAGun
What do explanations have to do with it? A belief is not an explanation. Perhaps you're conflating beliefs with explanations?
— Cabbage Farmer

What the h*** are you talking about. If you have a true/factual/tested physical explanation for a phenomenon YOU NO LONGER NEED TO BELIEVE what ever it was that you believed about the phenomenon. YOU NOW KNOW FOR A FACT. belief is no longer required. — SonOfAGun

This is further evidence of the corruption of the word "believe."

I'm not faulting, Cabbage Farmer, about it...just commenting on how the corruption manifests itself.

The word has almost lost any usefulness, because it just does not do a decent job of communicating an idea.

That is why those others have been so bothered by me saying, "I do NOT 'believe' I am Frank. I KNOW I am Frank."

They see that as illogical...where, in fact, IT IS LOGICAL.

I've stopped using the words "believe" and "belief" except when discussing the words as we are doing here. And when someone uses one of them in a comment to me, I merely paraphrase it...and ask if that is what they meant.

On the first page of this thread, there is a comment, "They also believe, like you probably do, that there are trees outside and that the midday sky is blue and that Paris is the capital of France..."

That is a conventional use of "believe." It is a convention...and does not impart what really is meant.

There ARE trees outside; the midday sky IS blue; Paris IS the capital of France. One doesn't have to "believe" them...they are facts (of a sort.) (The midday sky in Beijing and San Francisco often is grey these days.)

The use of the word "believe" there is a convention...and serves to corrupt the word.

SonOfAGun
96
Sorry, TMF...I just do not know what fae means...and was not able to find out from Google.
— Frank Apisa

Try typing into google "the fae" rather than just fae.

Edit>>> Well it actually pulls it up both ways. I thought you said you already tried. — SonOfAGun

I did.

But what I entered was "Definition of Internet FAE."

I thought it was one of those Internet acronyms.

I realize now that fae...is a term for fairies. Seems to me that it came up often in True Blood.

However, if an agnostic ever decides to choose between god existing or not... — MadFool

I cannot speak for all agnostics, but if it were I making that decision, I would do it by flipping a coin. I am not being flip (pun intended) here...I cannot think of a better basis for a guess. I have done this several times while discussing the topic with others. It does nothing for the conversation.

...fae, because fae presumes the data is insufficient, would be guessing. — MadFool

Ahhh...for "at least one god exists" or "there are no gods"...the coin flip gu ess makes sense.

For fairies, gnomes, sirens, succubi, etc...not so much. There is enough information to make one of those "informed guesses" I mentioned. My guess on things like these (AND I WOULD CALL IT A GUESS) would be that they do not exist here on this planet.

Nobeernolife
343
What Athena said is absolutely correct. The "Allah" of Islam...IS the god of Abraham.
— Frank Apisa

Seeing that Allah opposes everything the Christian god says and hates its followers, that claim would only make any sense if this united god was schizophrenic.
Now go away, troll. — Nobeernolife

You are totally wrong...but that should not bother you, because you seem to have more practice at that than most people.

I am not going anywhere.

Nobeernolife
343
If you could logically show any of my arguments
— Frank Apisa

There was no argument, let alone several. Now go away, troll. — Nobeernolife

So you cannot.

Okay...I didn't think you could.

And I am not going anywhere.

TheMadFool
5.1k
↪Frank Apisa How would you differentiate, if it's a reasonable question to you at all, between the following three scenarios:

With reference to Francis Galton's Wisdom of the crowd,

1. Imagine someone accosts you in a fair, presents a jar full of marbles and asks you, "how many marbles does this jar contain?"

2. Now, imagine someone else, with a similar jar approaches you and says, "the jar alone weighs approximately 200 grams, each marble is roughly 1 gram and the jar with the marbles is about 600 grams. How many marbles does the jar contain?"

3. Then consider a third person, who comes to you and says, "the jar without the marbles weighs exactly 200 grams, each marble weighs exactly 1 gram and the jar together with the marbles weighs exactly 600 grams. How many marbles does the jar contain?"

For me, scenario 1, if we are to answer the question, is what I feel can be handled only by guessing for zero information is available; there's no possible means to logically deduce the actual number of marbles in the jar.

As for scenario 2, we have what can be termed, fuzzy data and although logical deduction of the number of marbles is possible, it wouldn't be accurate. There's no guarantee that the calculations will lead to the exact figure. — TheMadFool

We are 5 by 5 at this point. I agree completely.

In secnario 3, we have all the information we need to deduce the exact number of marbles in the jar. — MadFool

Correct.

Which of the 3 scenarios would be a guess for you? The essence of guessing appears to be randomness i.e. when every possible answer in the scenarios I described is equiprobable. The moment the probability for any one answer is higher than the rest or the answer can be logically deduced then it's not guessing. — MadFool

1 can only be obtained by guessing. 2 has a bit more information, but a guess still is in order. I grant that I would not use "blind guess" for either...because enough information IS available to make a (sorta) informed guess. (I've made guesses at charity events...with marbles and with jelly beans.)

3 can be determined exactly...if the information is exact. One could argue that a guess would have to be made about the reliability of the information...but I am guessing that is not what you were getting at.

Both scenario 2 and 3 can't be guessing; after all in scenario 2, a particular answer's probability is higher than others and in scenario 3 we can actually determine the correct answer. — MadFool

Now we diverge a bit.

2 is a guess. because of the type of information given. I suspect a decent guess could be made...but it would still involve some guessing. But in the interest of moving along...allow me to (with minor reservations) agree that it is NOT a guess.

God beliefs, atheism or theism, correspond to scenario 2 - deductions based on insufficient data and so, in my humble opinion, doesn't amount to guessing for the least that can be said is that the relative probability of god's existence either increases/decreases with the strength of their arguments. — MadFool

Here we diverge so completely that I am not sure we can reconcile.

For the last four decades I have assiduously attempted to find any reasonable way to do a probability estimate for "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods"...and the best I could come up with was a coin toss.

Honestly. People who identify as atheists use the same "evidence" as theists to come up with probability estimates in favor of "there are no gods"...that theists use to come up with "there is at least one god."

Cannot be done any better than a coin toss, TMF. Please, if you can show me differently, do it. I wouldl love to put this problem behind me. I've gone over this with at least one Bishop...and with some of the smartest atheists I've ever known.

However, if an agnostic ever decides to choose between god existing or not, fae, because fae presumes the data is insufficient, would be guessing. — MadFool

Sorry, TMF...I just do not know what fae means...and was not able to find out from Google.

Nobeernolife
341
About comparing the God of Abraham religions- they all share the same God
— Athena

No, they do not. The description of God figure is completely different, and if you think of islam as a sort of Arab Christianity all you do is demonstrate that you have not researched the issue at all. Zip, zilch, nada. — Nobeernolife

What Athena said is absolutely correct. The "Allah" of Islam...IS the god of Abraham.

If you are not even aware of that...you should not be in a discussion of this topic.

Nobeernolife
341
Yeah. All Frankie's got is trollin' ... and some of us are bored enough to play whack-a-troll with him. What a hypocrite though: he allows himself to define "atheism" in a self-serving manner but does not allows anyone else to define "agnosticism" - even for the sake of discussion - in any way other than the way he does. And then he wonders why he's the piñata du jour. :yawn:
— 180 Proof

Oh, he is a well-known troll around here? I had sort of written it off as senility. Either way, I plonk him, but if it is not Alzheimers I scrap the sympathy too. — Nobeernolife

If you could logically show any of my arguments to be illogical...you would have done it.

You haven't. All you've done is what Trump does so often...claim a victory of some sort.

god must be atheist
2k
It applies to you also.
— Frank Apisa

You're in over your head in this, Frank. When you are reduced to comebacks that lose their effectiveness past grade three, you know you have run your course and out of ammunition. Time for you to migrate to Philosophynow.org. — god must be atheist

I most assuredly am not "in over my head"...which is the kind of thing that loses its effectiveness once out of the sandbox.

But let's not make this about you and your errors.

180 Proof
841
↪Frank Apisa Troll is as troll does ... :mask: — 180 Proof

You are an amateur.

But...let's not make this thread about you and your errors.

god must be atheist
2k
LOL, welcome to the fan club. Trying to argue with the guy is like banging your head against the wall...
— Nobeernolife
Yeah. All Frankie's got is trollin' ... and some of us are bored enough to play whack-a-troll with him.
— 180 Proof

When you show him black-on-white, quoting him, that he is wrong, he will call you an asshole and go on with his own beloved self-created stickhorse. His stick-horse, however, is a one-trick pony and we have seen all it could perform, over and over and over again.

I used to know a guy in a social setting back twenty-thirty years ago who very vehemently had some views on the relationship between intellect and literacy; and he proposed it in a very aggressive and provocative way; it always incited someone in the company to respond and argue with him, but that's all he did. He was otherwise a kind, friendly, helpful sort of feller, he was not jealous, greedy, defiant, or unreasonable otherwise. — god must be atheist

It applies to you also.

180 Proof
839
LOL, welcome to the fan club. Trying to argue with the guy is like banging your head against the wall...
— Nobeernolife
Yeah. All Frankie's got is trollin' ... and some of us are bored enough to play whack-a-troll with him. What a hypocrite though: he allows himself to define "atheism" in a self-serving manner but does not allows anyone else to define "agnosticism" - even for the sake of discussion - in any way other than the way he does. And then he wonders why he's the piñata du jour. :yawn: — 180 Proof

I'm allowing you guys to beat the piss out of yourselves...and laughing each time I get to the keyboard.

You guys are too easy, though. I like when I have to put some effort into an exchange. But on those occasions where I can get opponents to damage themselves...the best I can do is to enjoy the show.

Thanks guys.

atheist: A word people use to describe themselves when they "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Ya know..."believers"...like the theists they mock so often.

Agnostic: Ummm...various things. But my agnosticism is:


I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Ohhh...atheists do not like that at all. It cuts through their bullshit...and even they realize the superiority of that position over the goof-ball nonsense they try to sell.

:lol:

Oops, hit the post button rather than the review.

Lots of mistakes I did not get to edit.

Sorry 'bout that.

Athena
546
↪Frank Apisa Well, thank you for setting things straight. I am not that interested in the popes, so I will bow out. But when it comes to being our own god, I don't think that is what a person wants. That is a lot of responsibility and I think we avoid responsibility when we can. :lol: — Athena

Thank you, Athena.

In another thread, I responded to someone that the very last thing in the world I would wat...is to be GOD.

Imagine the terror of finding out that you essentially are the only thing that exists...and that everything else is a creation (illusion) of your own making.

You would be TOTALLY ALONE...with no companionship even possible.

My guess would be...if there is a GOD...the thing that GOD does is to stay in a state of constant illusion. An illusion of otherness being possible; an illusion that there is a universe filled with things; that there are other beings with which IT can interact.

But...what the hell do I know!

LOL, welcome to the fan club. Trying to argue with the guy is like banging your head against the wall... he simply does not comprehend what is being said and goes back to his one single line about atheism, which he never tires of repeating. — Nobeernolife

What I say about atheism is correct. That seems to be what bothers you. Stop allowing me to bother so easily.

People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor...use it because their either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The pretense that they do it just because they lack a "belief" (in) a god...is farce.

One can lack that "belief"...and choose not to use the word. The choice is predicated on the "beliefs" I mentioned...not on a definition in some dictionaries.

Not sure why that bothers you so.

It shouldn't.

You actually know it to be true.

That might fit on a tee shirt, but I would not try it on a hat or bumper sticker.

First of all, let me mention that "guessing" is an absolute necessity to almost every scholarly or scientific endeavor. I am NOT bad-mouthing guessing in any way. (Sometimes that gets lost in the rhetoric. Just wanted to be sure I put it out there solidly.)

My problem is not with guessing...but with disguising the guesses using the words "believe" or "belief." Scientists often use "hypotheses" or "theories" for guesses...and then go on to test those hypotheses or theories to come as close to verification as possible. (They seldom "prove" things...they just get as close as possible.)

A person saying/asserting "I 'believe' (in) God" is disguising that a guess is being made...and is not interested in testing or challenging that guess in any way. In fact, most religions teach that questioning the guess (belief) is sinful and dangerous. (Figures!)

A person saying/asserting "I 'believe' no gods exist" is also making a guess and disguising that it is a guess. Any testing of that guess...is so distant from "scientific/logic/reason" that assertions to that effect are laughable.

Yeah, I agree. Guessing is a means of acquiring knowledge. BUT NOT IN THIS AREA.

Pinprick
60
I KNOW WHO I AM.
— Frank Apisa

But do you believe you are Frank? — Pinprick

No...I do not "believe" I am Frank. I KNOW I AM FRANK.

You truly are having trouble understanding that concept, aren't you.

Pinprick
57
↪Frank Apisa

Or perhaps this?

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/knowledge — Pinprick

If someone wants to think that "knowledge" is "belief"...fine with me. If they want to think it is a cheese sandwich...that is also okay with me.

I'll stick with facts.

You don’t believe you are Frank?

Correct. I KNOW I am Frank.

Then who do you believe you are?

I KNOW WHO I AM.

180 Proof
836
Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
— SonOfAGun
True - in the abstract. But that's not my argument. If you're genuinely interested - not just in trolling (like Frankie) or scoring points against strawmen, keep looking, Son. — 180 Proof

TRUE...period. Unless you are an atheist who wants to pretend possession of a proof that simply does not exist.

Also the main body or your argument is fallacious. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm still looking for other "proofs" I'll let you know If I find any. — SonOfAGun

You won't.

There are none...although that will not stop some people from insisting there are.

How then would you define knowledge? — Pinprick

Facts.

Definition of knowledge
1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2): the range of one's information or understanding
answered to the best of my knowledge

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge

knowledge ​‌‌‌
​NOUN
US

/ˈnɑlɪdʒ/
DEFINITIONS2
1
SINGULAR/UNCOUNTABLE all the facts that someone knows about a particular subject
The teacher’s comments are designed to help improve your knowledge and understanding.
knowledge of/about: Lawyers should possess detailed knowledge of certain aspects of the law.
Candidates for the job must have a working knowledge of at least one European language.


https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/knowledge

You might want to read the book "Jesus Wars" by Philip Jenkins. The history of Christianity is full of conflicts and power plays, not so different from Republican presidents wiping out all the achievements of Democrat presidents one pope would wipe out the work of the previous pope. What happened was not at all better than the witch hunts and the witch hunts are the direct result of ignorance and that ignorance was the result of destroying the pagan temples that were places of learning and transmitting the knowledge that gave us modernity when it was rediscovered during the renascence.

It amazes me that Christians appear to know nothing of religious history but have a complete fantasy of their religion. — Athena

One...I hope you do not think I am a Christian...of any sort. I most assuredly am not

Two...part of Christian history has been as savage as the history of any religion that has ever existed on this planet...and that includes the several barbaric ones that existed in what is now called Central America. I acknowledge that...completely and without reservation.

Three...the Bishop made A SPECIFIC charge about the first few popes...asserting that they were immoral and decadent. I have asked him to meet the burden of proof his assertion bears.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if Christianity ends up being the most barbaric religion ever to exist in the entire galaxy in which planet Earth is found. The question is not about Christianity. It is about the first few popes. I've furnished the names of the first twelve...and I am waiting for some evidence that they were immoral and/or decadent.

Nothing so far from the Bishop...AND NOTHING FROM YOU EITHER.

This conversation you are having with several people stems from the corruption of that word "believe" that I have talked about.

Some of these people think it would be absurd for me to say:

I know I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard...and I do not "believe" I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard.

But that is absolutely the truth.

I KNOW I am here...sitting at my desk...typing on my keyboard.

There is NO "believing" involved in the essence of that statement...which is merely to identify the fact that I (Frank) am sitting on a chair pulled up to the well of a desk in my den typing a response to an Internet forum.

But the use of the word "believe" has gotten so corrupted...the people you are debating think it must be used to identify that situation. They see that bolded comment above to be a contradiction of some sort.

It is not.

Thank you, Athena.

I have as much frustration with the impact of religious thinking on our society as the next...but I think it is best combated by not being unreasonable.

The Bishop made a statement that NO ONE...not the Bishop or any historian, would be able to establish with any degree of certainty, namely that the first few popes were immoral and decadent. .

I was calling attention to that. The Bishop decided to derail.

It happens from time to time.

Gnostic Christian Bishop
1k
You made an assertion...I've asked you to back it up...and you have declined.
— Frank Apisa

I did not decline and gave you 2 link. If a 1,000 years of Dark Ages is not enough for you, bite me.

Fetch boy fetch yourself, and provide the histories of the popes you named. Dummy.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You are the guy who made the assertion about the first few popes.

I furnished you the names of the first 12 popes.

Now you are asking me to do the job of meeting YOUR burden of proof?

You are new to this, aren't you?

I aim to follow this admirable terminological convention in my use of the term "bullshit".

I like to reserve the term "horseshit" as an upgrade: For instance to characterize the desperate flailing of a narcissistic bullshit artist who has been cornered by reasonable discourse, and proceeds to kick up a cloud of horseshit in an attempt to avoid accountability for the bullshit he has already released in conversation. — Cabbage Farmer

Sounds reasonable to me, CF. In fact, I might even borrow that quote after checking it out independently.

But this all refers back to something you said earlier: "Some people provide extensive arguments for their theistic or atheistic claims and beliefs. I'm not inclined to call that "guessing".

Okay...I appreciate that you are not inclined to call that "guessing."

I, however, DO...in spades and in capital letters.

And I am inclined, at times, to calling it bullshit.

(After reading your post, I acknowledge I may have to revise that last part.)